From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> To: Srinivasan Raju <srini.raju@purelifi.com> Cc: "open list:STAGING SUBSYSTEM" <devel@driverdev.osuosl.org>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, pureLiFi Ltd <info@purelifi.com>, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, mostafa.afgani@purelifi.com, open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi devices Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 22:07:58 +0300 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20200924190758.GM4282@kadam> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20200924151910.21693-1-srini.raju@purelifi.com> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 08:48:51PM +0530, Srinivasan Raju wrote: > + > +#include <linux/kernel.h> > +#include <linux/errno.h> > + > +#include "def.h" > +#include "chip.h" > +#include "mac.h" > +#include "usb.h" > +#include "log.h" > + > +void purelifi_chip_init(struct purelifi_chip *chip, > + struct ieee80211_hw *hw, > + struct usb_interface *intf > + ) There is a bunch of really trivial messiness like this. It should look like: void purelifi_chip_init(struct purelifi_chip *chip, struct ieee80211_hw *hw, struct usb_interface *intf) > +{ > + memset(chip, 0, sizeof(*chip)); > + mutex_init(&chip->mutex); > + purelifi_usb_init(&chip->usb, hw, intf); > +} > + > +void purelifi_chip_clear(struct purelifi_chip *chip) > +{ > + PURELIFI_ASSERT(!mutex_is_locked(&chip->mutex)); > + purelifi_usb_clear(&chip->usb); > + mutex_destroy(&chip->mutex); > + PURELIFI_MEMCLEAR(chip, sizeof(*chip)); Get rid of the PURELIFI_MEMCLEAR() macro. The weird thing about PURELIFI_MEMCLEAR() is that sometimes it's a no-op. It seems unnecessary to memset() the struct here. I'm not a fan of all these tiny functions. It feels like I have to jump around a lot to understand the code. What does "clear" mean in this context. Probably "release" is a better name. > +} > + > +static int scnprint_mac_oui(struct purelifi_chip *chip, char *buffer, > + size_t size) > +{ > + u8 *addr = purelifi_mac_get_perm_addr(purelifi_chip_to_mac(chip)); > + > + return scnprintf(buffer, size, "%02x-%02x-%02x", > + addr[0], addr[1], addr[2]); > +} > + > +/* Prints an identifier line, which will support debugging. */ > +static int scnprint_id(struct purelifi_chip *chip, char *buffer, size_t size) This function name is too vague. What ID is it printing? > +{ > + int i = 0; The initialization is not required. "i" means "iterator". This should be "cnt" instead. > + > + i = scnprintf(buffer, size, "purelifi%s chip ", ""); > + i += purelifi_usb_scnprint_id(&chip->usb, buffer + i, size - i); > + i += scnprintf(buffer + i, size - i, " "); > + i += scnprint_mac_oui(chip, buffer + i, size - i); > + i += scnprintf(buffer + i, size - i, " "); > + return i; This is an example of how tiny functions obfuscate the code. It should be written like this: static void print_whatever(struct purelifi_chip *chip) { u8 *addr = purelifi_mac_get_perm_addr(purelifi_chip_to_mac(chip)); struct usb_device *udev = interface_to_usbdev(chip->usb.intf); pr_info("purelifi chip 04hx:%04hx v%04hx %s %02x-%02x-%02x\n", le16_to_cpu(udev->descriptor.idVendor), le16_to_cpu(udev->descriptor.idProduct), get_bcd_device(udev), speed(udev->speed), addr[0], addr[1], addr[2]); } > +} > + > +static void print_id(struct purelifi_chip *chip) > +{ > + char buffer[80]; > + > + scnprint_id(chip, buffer, sizeof(buffer)); > + buffer[sizeof(buffer) - 1] = 0; snprintf() functions alway put a NUL terminator on the end of the string. > + pl_dev_info(purelifi_chip_dev(chip), "%s\n", buffer); > +} > + > +/* MAC address: if custom mac addresses are to be used CR_MAC_ADDR_P1 and > + * CR_MAC_ADDR_P2 must be overwritten > + */ > +int purelifi_write_mac_addr(struct purelifi_chip *chip, const u8 *mac_addr) > +{ > + int r; > + > + r = usb_write_req(mac_addr, ETH_ALEN, USB_REQ_MAC_WR); > + return r; Delete the "r" variable. return usb_write_req(mac_addr, ETH_ALEN, USB_REQ_MAC_WR); Again, I'm not a huge fan of one line functions for no reason. Actually, the function is never called. Just delete it. > +} > + > +int purelifi_set_beacon_interval(struct purelifi_chip *chip, u16 interval, > + u8 dtim_period, int type) > +{ > + int r; > + > + if (!interval || (chip->beacon_set && > + chip->beacon_interval == interval)) { > + return 0; > + } > + > + chip->beacon_interval = interval; > + chip->beacon_set = true; > + r = usb_write_req((const u8 *)&chip->beacon_interval, > + sizeof(chip->beacon_interval), > + USB_REQ_BEACON_INTERVAL_WR); > + return r; Delete the "r" variable. > +} > + > +static int hw_init(struct purelifi_chip *chip) > +{ > + return purelifi_set_beacon_interval(chip, 100, 0, 0); > +} This is a oneline function which is only called once. Move it inline. > + > +int purelifi_chip_init_hw(struct purelifi_chip *chip) > +{ > + int r; > + > + r = hw_init(chip); > + if (r) > + goto out; Just return directly. The little bunny hop doesn't add anything. > + > + print_id(chip); > +out: > + return r; > +} Anyway, those are some ideas. regards, dan carpenter
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> To: Srinivasan Raju <srini.raju@purelifi.com> Cc: "open list:STAGING SUBSYSTEM" <devel@driverdev.osuosl.org>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, pureLiFi Ltd <info@purelifi.com>, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, mostafa.afgani@purelifi.com, open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi devices Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 22:07:58 +0300 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20200924190758.GM4282@kadam> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20200924151910.21693-1-srini.raju@purelifi.com> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 08:48:51PM +0530, Srinivasan Raju wrote: > + > +#include <linux/kernel.h> > +#include <linux/errno.h> > + > +#include "def.h" > +#include "chip.h" > +#include "mac.h" > +#include "usb.h" > +#include "log.h" > + > +void purelifi_chip_init(struct purelifi_chip *chip, > + struct ieee80211_hw *hw, > + struct usb_interface *intf > + ) There is a bunch of really trivial messiness like this. It should look like: void purelifi_chip_init(struct purelifi_chip *chip, struct ieee80211_hw *hw, struct usb_interface *intf) > +{ > + memset(chip, 0, sizeof(*chip)); > + mutex_init(&chip->mutex); > + purelifi_usb_init(&chip->usb, hw, intf); > +} > + > +void purelifi_chip_clear(struct purelifi_chip *chip) > +{ > + PURELIFI_ASSERT(!mutex_is_locked(&chip->mutex)); > + purelifi_usb_clear(&chip->usb); > + mutex_destroy(&chip->mutex); > + PURELIFI_MEMCLEAR(chip, sizeof(*chip)); Get rid of the PURELIFI_MEMCLEAR() macro. The weird thing about PURELIFI_MEMCLEAR() is that sometimes it's a no-op. It seems unnecessary to memset() the struct here. I'm not a fan of all these tiny functions. It feels like I have to jump around a lot to understand the code. What does "clear" mean in this context. Probably "release" is a better name. > +} > + > +static int scnprint_mac_oui(struct purelifi_chip *chip, char *buffer, > + size_t size) > +{ > + u8 *addr = purelifi_mac_get_perm_addr(purelifi_chip_to_mac(chip)); > + > + return scnprintf(buffer, size, "%02x-%02x-%02x", > + addr[0], addr[1], addr[2]); > +} > + > +/* Prints an identifier line, which will support debugging. */ > +static int scnprint_id(struct purelifi_chip *chip, char *buffer, size_t size) This function name is too vague. What ID is it printing? > +{ > + int i = 0; The initialization is not required. "i" means "iterator". This should be "cnt" instead. > + > + i = scnprintf(buffer, size, "purelifi%s chip ", ""); > + i += purelifi_usb_scnprint_id(&chip->usb, buffer + i, size - i); > + i += scnprintf(buffer + i, size - i, " "); > + i += scnprint_mac_oui(chip, buffer + i, size - i); > + i += scnprintf(buffer + i, size - i, " "); > + return i; This is an example of how tiny functions obfuscate the code. It should be written like this: static void print_whatever(struct purelifi_chip *chip) { u8 *addr = purelifi_mac_get_perm_addr(purelifi_chip_to_mac(chip)); struct usb_device *udev = interface_to_usbdev(chip->usb.intf); pr_info("purelifi chip 04hx:%04hx v%04hx %s %02x-%02x-%02x\n", le16_to_cpu(udev->descriptor.idVendor), le16_to_cpu(udev->descriptor.idProduct), get_bcd_device(udev), speed(udev->speed), addr[0], addr[1], addr[2]); } > +} > + > +static void print_id(struct purelifi_chip *chip) > +{ > + char buffer[80]; > + > + scnprint_id(chip, buffer, sizeof(buffer)); > + buffer[sizeof(buffer) - 1] = 0; snprintf() functions alway put a NUL terminator on the end of the string. > + pl_dev_info(purelifi_chip_dev(chip), "%s\n", buffer); > +} > + > +/* MAC address: if custom mac addresses are to be used CR_MAC_ADDR_P1 and > + * CR_MAC_ADDR_P2 must be overwritten > + */ > +int purelifi_write_mac_addr(struct purelifi_chip *chip, const u8 *mac_addr) > +{ > + int r; > + > + r = usb_write_req(mac_addr, ETH_ALEN, USB_REQ_MAC_WR); > + return r; Delete the "r" variable. return usb_write_req(mac_addr, ETH_ALEN, USB_REQ_MAC_WR); Again, I'm not a huge fan of one line functions for no reason. Actually, the function is never called. Just delete it. > +} > + > +int purelifi_set_beacon_interval(struct purelifi_chip *chip, u16 interval, > + u8 dtim_period, int type) > +{ > + int r; > + > + if (!interval || (chip->beacon_set && > + chip->beacon_interval == interval)) { > + return 0; > + } > + > + chip->beacon_interval = interval; > + chip->beacon_set = true; > + r = usb_write_req((const u8 *)&chip->beacon_interval, > + sizeof(chip->beacon_interval), > + USB_REQ_BEACON_INTERVAL_WR); > + return r; Delete the "r" variable. > +} > + > +static int hw_init(struct purelifi_chip *chip) > +{ > + return purelifi_set_beacon_interval(chip, 100, 0, 0); > +} This is a oneline function which is only called once. Move it inline. > + > +int purelifi_chip_init_hw(struct purelifi_chip *chip) > +{ > + int r; > + > + r = hw_init(chip); > + if (r) > + goto out; Just return directly. The little bunny hop doesn't add anything. > + > + print_id(chip); > +out: > + return r; > +} Anyway, those are some ideas. regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-24 19:10 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 134+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-09-24 15:18 [PATCH] staging: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi devices Srinivasan Raju 2020-09-24 15:18 ` Srinivasan Raju 2020-09-24 15:36 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2020-09-24 15:36 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2020-09-24 17:24 ` Srinivasan Raju 2020-09-24 17:24 ` Srinivasan Raju 2020-09-24 17:29 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2020-09-24 17:29 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2020-09-28 10:25 ` Srinivasan Raju 2020-09-28 10:25 ` Srinivasan Raju 2020-09-24 15:37 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2020-09-24 15:37 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2020-09-24 18:28 ` Randy Dunlap 2020-09-24 18:28 ` Randy Dunlap 2020-09-28 10:27 ` Srinivasan Raju 2020-09-28 10:27 ` Srinivasan Raju 2020-09-24 19:07 ` Dan Carpenter [this message] 2020-09-24 19:07 ` Dan Carpenter 2020-09-28 10:26 ` Srinivasan Raju 2020-09-28 10:26 ` Srinivasan Raju 2020-09-28 10:19 ` [PATCH] [v2] wireless: " Srinivasan Raju 2020-09-28 12:07 ` Joe Perches 2020-09-28 12:53 ` Srinivasan Raju 2020-09-30 5:16 ` Leon Romanovsky 2020-09-30 5:29 ` Srinivasan Raju 2020-09-30 8:01 ` Kalle Valo 2020-09-30 9:55 ` Leon Romanovsky 2020-09-30 10:11 ` Johannes Berg 2020-09-30 10:44 ` Leon Romanovsky 2020-10-16 8:23 ` Kalle Valo 2020-09-30 8:05 ` Kalle Valo 2020-09-30 10:04 ` Leon Romanovsky 2020-10-14 6:19 ` [PATCH] [PATCH] [v3] wireless: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi STA devices Srinivasan Raju 2020-10-14 10:17 ` kernel test robot 2020-10-14 10:17 ` kernel test robot 2020-10-15 22:35 ` Joe Perches 2020-10-16 6:36 ` Srinivasan Raju 2020-10-16 6:34 ` [PATCH] [v4] " Srinivasan Raju 2020-10-16 8:58 ` Joe Perches 2020-10-16 10:13 ` Srinivasan Raju 2020-10-19 3:17 ` [PATCH] [v5] " Srinivasan Raju 2020-10-19 4:55 ` Joe Perches 2020-10-19 6:05 ` Srinivasan Raju 2020-10-19 8:38 ` [PATCH] [v6] " Srinivasan Raju 2020-10-19 16:07 ` Krishna Chaitanya 2020-10-19 16:40 ` Srinivasan Raju 2020-10-19 16:54 ` Joe Perches 2020-10-19 17:05 ` Srinivasan Raju 2020-11-16 9:22 ` [PATCH] [v7] " Srinivasan Raju 2020-11-16 20:45 ` Joe Perches 2020-11-18 3:24 ` Srinivasan Raju 2020-11-24 14:44 ` Kalle Valo [not found] ` <20201124144448.4E95EC43460@smtp.codeaurora.org> 2020-11-26 5:01 ` Srinivasan Raju 2020-12-03 4:43 ` Srinivasan Raju 2020-12-03 15:58 ` Kalle Valo 2020-12-03 16:50 ` Srinivasan Raju 2020-12-19 13:15 ` Kalle Valo 2020-12-03 4:38 ` [PATCH] [v8] " Srinivasan Raju 2020-12-03 5:09 ` [PATCH] [v9] " Srinivasan Raju 2020-12-03 7:53 ` Joe Perches 2020-12-08 5:53 ` [PATCH] [v10] " Srinivasan Raju 2020-12-08 11:57 ` [PATCH] [v11] " Srinivasan Raju 2020-12-08 14:37 ` Kalle Valo 2020-12-19 12:51 ` Kalle Valo 2020-12-19 13:06 ` Kalle Valo 2020-12-19 13:14 ` Kalle Valo 2020-12-21 5:52 ` Srinivasan Raju 2020-12-21 5:57 ` Kalle Valo 2021-01-15 12:13 ` Srinivasan Raju 2021-01-05 13:19 ` [PATCH] [PATCH] [v12] " Srinivasan Raju 2021-02-12 11:49 ` [PATCH] [v13] " Srinivasan Raju 2021-02-12 13:44 ` Johannes Berg 2021-02-17 10:05 ` Kalle Valo 2021-02-19 5:15 ` Srinivasan Raju 2021-02-19 8:25 ` Johannes Berg 2021-02-24 10:41 ` Srinivasan Raju 2021-02-12 15:06 ` kernel test robot 2021-02-12 15:06 ` kernel test robot 2021-02-12 17:57 ` kernel test robot 2021-02-12 17:57 ` kernel test robot 2021-02-17 10:02 ` Kalle Valo 2021-02-17 10:13 ` Kalle Valo 2021-02-17 10:16 ` Srinivasan Raju 2021-02-17 10:09 ` Kalle Valo 2021-02-17 10:19 ` Kalle Valo 2021-02-24 10:44 ` Srinivasan Raju 2021-02-26 13:07 ` [PATCH] [v14] " Srinivasan Raju 2021-04-19 11:52 ` Srinivasan Raju 2021-08-10 13:02 ` Srinivasan Raju 2021-08-21 13:42 ` Kalle Valo 2021-08-18 14:13 ` [PATCH] [v15] " Srinivasan Raju 2021-09-20 13:05 ` Kalle Valo [not found] ` <CWLP265MB3217BB5AA5F102629A3AD204E0A19@CWLP265MB3217.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> 2021-09-21 12:30 ` [EXTERNAL] " Kalle Valo 2021-09-22 7:33 ` Johannes Berg 2021-09-24 13:27 ` [EXTERNAL] " Srinivasan Raju 2021-09-20 14:11 ` Kalle Valo 2021-09-24 11:11 ` Kalle Valo 2021-09-24 13:26 ` [PATCH] [v16] wireless: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi LiFi Station Srinivasan Raju 2021-09-24 13:40 ` Kalle Valo 2021-10-05 11:22 ` [PATCH] [v17] wireless: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi STA devices Srinivasan Raju 2021-10-05 11:26 ` Johannes Berg 2021-10-05 12:30 ` [PATCH] [v18 1/2] nl80211: Add LC placeholder band definition to enum nl80211_band Srinivasan Raju 2021-10-05 12:31 ` [PATCH] [v18 2/2] wireless: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi STA devices Srinivasan Raju 2021-10-05 22:09 ` Jeff Johnson 2021-10-06 10:04 ` [PATCH] [v19 " Srinivasan Raju 2021-10-11 6:16 ` Kalle Valo 2021-10-12 12:50 ` [PATCH 0/2] wireless: New Driver " Srinivasan Raju 2021-10-12 12:50 ` [PATCH 1/2] [v19 1/2] nl80211: Add LC placeholder band definition to enum nl80211_band Srinivasan Raju 2021-10-12 12:50 ` [PATCH 2/2] [v19 2/2] wireless: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi STA devices Srinivasan Raju 2021-10-14 6:03 ` kernel test robot 2021-10-14 6:03 ` kernel test robot 2021-10-24 17:58 ` kernel test robot 2021-10-24 17:58 ` kernel test robot 2021-10-18 10:00 ` [PATCH v20 0/2] wireless: New Driver " Srinivasan Raju 2021-10-18 10:00 ` [PATCH v20 1/2] nl80211: Add LC placeholder band definition to nl80211_band Srinivasan Raju 2021-10-18 10:00 ` [PATCH v20 2/2] wireless: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi STA devices Srinivasan Raju 2021-10-25 9:59 ` Kari Argillander [not found] ` <CWLP265MB321780AB502EF147F6AAF197E0839@CWLP265MB3217.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> 2021-10-25 12:17 ` [EXTERNAL] " Kalle Valo 2021-10-27 11:34 ` kernel test robot 2021-10-27 11:34 ` kernel test robot 2021-10-27 12:38 ` Kari Argillander 2021-10-28 7:24 ` Kalle Valo 2021-10-31 13:10 ` [PATCH v21 0/2] wireless: New Driver " Srinivasan Raju 2021-10-31 13:10 ` [PATCH 1/2] nl80211: Add LC placeholder band definition to nl80211_band Srinivasan Raju 2021-10-31 13:10 ` [PATCH 2/2] wireless: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi STA devices Srinivasan Raju 2021-12-20 19:13 ` Kalle Valo 2022-02-24 15:35 ` Kalle Valo 2022-02-24 18:20 ` [PATCH v22 0/2] wireless: New Driver " Srinivasan Raju 2022-02-24 18:20 ` [PATCH v22 1/2] nl80211: Add LC placeholder band definition to nl80211_band Srinivasan Raju 2022-02-25 9:52 ` Kalle Valo 2022-02-24 18:20 ` [PATCH v22 1/2] wireless: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi STA devices Srinivasan Raju 2022-04-25 13:06 ` Kalle Valo [not found] ` <CWLP265MB32173F6188304F6B2CB90C79E0F89@CWLP265MB3217.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> 2022-04-26 4:17 ` [EXTERNAL] " Kalle Valo 2022-04-27 4:55 ` Kalle Valo
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20200924190758.GM4282@kadam \ --to=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \ --cc=davem@davemloft.net \ --cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \ --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \ --cc=info@purelifi.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=mchehab+huawei@kernel.org \ --cc=mostafa.afgani@purelifi.com \ --cc=robh@kernel.org \ --cc=srini.raju@purelifi.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.